On 13.02.11 21:59, Robby Findler wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Stefan Schmiedl<s at xss.de> wrote:
>> Naively speaking (and without reading any docs ;-), I'd expect =>
>> to handle "normal" operations. Using error-arrows is a good idea,
>> as it makes it clearly visible that there's something going on here
>> without clobbering the test descriptions.
>>>> In Robby's case (+ x 1) would raise an error, which would _not_
>> be caught by => but instead show up as normal exception.
>>>> I'm not convinced that you'd need more than one type of error arrow,
>> though.
>> Syntax errors are sufficiently different that it seems warranted to
> me. It is just to easy to duplicate a syntax error on both sides of
> the => when you really meant to be testing something else (even an
> error condition). Unless you're testing a macro, after all, you don't
> want any syntax errors at all.
So maybe add an additional test-syntax form which "quotes" syntax errors
so you can test them. And make the normal test form re-raise syntax errors.
I don't think that having to use a separate form just to test macros
would be a bad idea.
--
regards,
Jakub Piotr Cłapa